Osuolale, M. D. and Felkner, J. (2026) From awareness to adoption: A theoretically grounded analysis of professional pathways in sustainable construction material usage in Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 24(4), pp. 963-991. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine why awareness of sustainable construction materials (SCM) fails to translate into adoption among Nigerian architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) professionals despite widespread environmental recognition, testing whether barriers are profession-specific or sector-wide. Design/methodology/approach – Cross-sectional survey of 273 AEC professionals (architects, civil engineers, builders, quantity surveyors, construction managers) across the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Validated composite indices measured awareness and adoption. Differences across professional groups were examined using the Kruskal–Wallis H test, Spearman's rank correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between awareness and adoption, and hierarchical regression was used to examine the predictors of adoption. Findings – Results reveal substantial awareness-adoption gap: 47.3% demonstrate high awareness versus only 11.4% high adoption (35.9 pp difference). Moderate correlation exists (ρ = 0.455, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.207), with awareness explaining merely 20.7% of adoption variance. Critically, no significant professional differences exist for awareness (H = 8.255, p = 0.083) or adoption (H = 4.178, p = 0.382). Regression confirms awareness as the sole significant predictor (β = 0.478, p < 0.001); professional affiliation adds negligible variance (ΔR2 = 0.016, p = 0.220). The 77.8% unexplained variance indicates institutional barriers as primary constraints. Practical implications – With awareness already high, education-focused interventions show limited returns. Evidence-based recommendations include mandatory green building codes (20–40% SCM requirements), financial incentives (10–15% tax breaks, subsidized loans) and supply chain development through government procurement guarantees. Originality/value – The first quantitative cross-professional mapping of SCM awareness-adoption patterns in Nigeria reveals sector-wide institutional constraints transcending professional boundaries. Findings challenge awareness-raising paradigms and redirect policy toward systemic reforms.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | awareness-adoption gap; developing countries; institutional barriers; Nigeria AEC; professional pathways; sustainable construction materials |
| Index terms: | composite, quantity surveying, variance, government procurement, Nigeria, architect, profession, paradigm, testing, guarantee, sustainable construction, developing country, financial incentive, civil engineer, builder, survey, green building, evidence, construction manager, methodology, mapping, boundaries |
| Subjects: | contract structure, education and knowledge transfer, design practice, measurement and scaling, procurement strategy, profession, data collection methods, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, Geography, sustainable construction, development economics, evaluation and assessment methods, materials science, institututions, practitioner, property law, professional practice, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, International Construction, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Sustainability, Procurement, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here